EX PARTE CHARLES CASSIDY

Citator

Cited By (17 total)

• Elgin v. Burley, 325 U.S. 711 (U.S. 1945)
  …the Fifth Amendment’s due process provision by denying judicial review to defeated employees, though allowing it to defeated employers. Cf. § 3 First (p), (q); Washington Terminal Co. v. Boswell, 124 F. 2d 235, affirmed by an equally divided Court, 319 U. S. 732. Finally respondents suggested most sweepingly that the Board may act “merely as an arbitrator,” with the result that “any decisions thereunder are void because it passes on matters and bases its decision and its opinion on law and fact which is co…
• Slocum v. Delaware, 339 U.S. 239 (U.S. 1950)
  …pp. 11-14; see Garrison, National Railroad Adjustment Board, 46 Yale L. J. 567, 576 et seq. Monograph, n. 5, supra, p. 7. See Washington Terminal Co. v. Boswell, 75 U. S. App. D. C. 1, 12, 124 F. 2d 235, 246; affirmed by an equally divided court, 319 U. S. 732. 48 Stat. 1191, §3 First (m) and (p). Garrison, National Railroad Adjustment Board, 46 Yale L. J. 567, 591. See Tunstall v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen, 323 U. S. 210; Steele v. Louisville & N. B. Co., 323 U. S. 192, 206. Compare Howard v. T…
• Bhd. of Locomotive Eng'rs v. Louisville & Nashville R.R. Co., 373 U.S. 33 (U.S. 1963)
  …intended by Congress to be the complete and final means for settling minor disputes. 360 U. S., at 616-617. See also, Washington Terminal Co. v. Boswell, 75 U. S. App. D. C. 1, 124 F. 2d 235 (per. Rutledge, J.), aff’d by an equally divided court, 319 U. S. 732. Of even more particularized relevance to the issue now before us is this Court’s decision in Trainmen v. Chicago R. & I. R. Co., supra. There the railroad had submitted several common grievances.to the Adjustment Board pursuant to'§ 3 First (i).…